What Have We Learned Here?

On May 7, 2004 I was taking my daily 4 mile exercise and think
walk in Atlanta as usual. I take different routes each time.
Today, the most pleasant part was a long grassy strip between
a street and the railroad track. There I was, walking along,
enjoying the late Springtime wildflowers that you can find
here and there on the grassy strip. I heard the train whistle
blow and looked over my shoulder. There it was, coming towards
me. Soon it passed in a loud cacaphony of engine and wheel
noise. The engineer waved hi and I waved back. I just kept
walking parallel to the tracks as the train passed.

And then I noticed something. About 3 cars back from the engine,
a wheel was throwing off a shower of sparks. Not just a few,
but lots of them. It looked like the wheel was rubbing on something
metallic. It looked so serious I thought the wheel could go
any minute and derail the train, so I immediately changed my
course and began walking well away from the train, which hurltled
on.

I'd never seen sparks that bad. I wondered how I could alert
the driver, who could not possibly see them. How normal was
this? It had probably happened many times before. What was
probably going to happen was when the train arrived at the
next depot, someone would notice the sparks or their effect
on the wheel. And....

Still walking, my thought were interrupted as I noticed something
smoldering in the ditch besides the train, which was still
passing. As I got closer, it was definitely smoke. And as I
got even closer, I could see it was a very small fire, obviously
started by the sparks.

My first reaction was to walk over to the ditch and stomp
it out with my feet while it was small. But that would put
me very close to the train. Not safe. Something could fall
off and hit me. Or it might still derail. So, not wanting to
make a small problem bigger, I waited.

My next thoughts were back to my childhood, growing up on
a farm in Maryland, when we had a small trash fire get out
of control. What had my dad done? He'd called my three brothers
and a few helpers over to look at it. It was big, maybe one
or two hundred meters in diameter and spreading through a field
of dry, harvested wheat towards the woods. Once it reached
the woods, it would be unstoppable. But nobody panicked. The
men got a few buckets, filled them only half full with water
so they wouldn't be too heavy, and soaked two burlap bags in
each bucket. Then they gave one bucket to each team of two
people, a man and a boy. Then the teams spread out and worked
the rim of the fire, swatting it with the wet bags. As big
as that fire was, it was out in what seemed to a little boy
like me in a few minutes. But somehow the whole event had taken
hours....

While waiting for the last car to pass, I looked around for
something to swat the advancing rim of the fire with. There
was nothing suitable. No rags, no green branches with leaves,
no thrown away shirt, nothing. I didn't even have a jacket
on I could use. It was a hot day, so I was in shorts and a
sleeveless mesh T shirt. So I decided to try to stomp it out
with my walking shoes, which have thick soles.

The last car passed. I walked up to the fire. By now the flames
were over my knees in places. Dry leaves, dry grass, and small
twigs were what was burning. The fire was still small, about
5 meters long and advancing slowly. I wondered, should I try
to put it out myself or call for help? I knew the neighborhood
well. I could be at someone's home in 3 minutes flat. We could
call the fire department. They would arrive in about 10 minutes.
But did we really need them? Not if I could put it out myself.
And if my efforts failed, there was nothing the flames were
about to endanger, just the grassy strip between the railroad
the street. I would still have plenty of time to call of help.
So I began stomping.

I tried a variety of techniques. Because the smoke was heavy
and the flames were hot, you could only dash in, stomp awhile,
and dash out before it got too hot. That didn't work too well,
so I tried something else. Bending down, I used my hands to
drag the dry leaves out of the way, to create a fuel gap around
the fire and starve it out. But this was slow, and I soon noticed
the fire was jumping the gap, which was only a foot wide. What
to do?

As I worked, I kept observing my actions and questioning how
well they were working. Was there a better way? I even stopped
and looked around now and then, to see if maybe a car had pulled
over due to all the smoke and might want to help. None did,
which I thought was interesting. I also looked around to make
sure the fire hadn't taken any long jumps and was getting away
from me without my realizing it.

Once again, should I stop and go call the fire department?
No. There was another alternative to try. There was a slight
breeze. The fire was advancing mostly in one direction. So
I got behind it to get out of the smoke and largest flames,
and began stomping it out again, starting where the flames
were the lowest. I worked the rim here and there. Where I could
see there was little fuel in front of the fire, I didn't bother
to work there. Where the flames were too high to get close,
I waited until it had burnt along a ways and became low again,
and then stomped it out there. I worked out an efficient technique
of press, twist, and drag with one foot while balancing on
the other. The fire was so hot I could only do this for about
15 seconds at a time. Then I had to pull back. By studying
the ring of fire closely while letting my legs and shoes cool,
I could see that using this technique, it was under control.
The problem was solved. So I continued. In another ten minutes,
all flames were out.

But there were dozens of smoldering plumes of smoke, and due
to the breeze they kept bursting into flame. So I had to go
back and forth for another ten minutes, dragging my shoes back
and forth over these flare ups to open up the coals and embers
and mix them into the dirt below.

Even then, there were many small tendrils of smoke left. It
was like a forest fire scene in the minature. The black, still
hot, burned out core was only about 10 meters long and 3 meters
wide. Some of the small pillars of smoke were still bursting
into tiny flames, but there was no fuel around them, and I
knew they would go out. But to be certain, because a gust might
blow a burning ember or leaf far enough to reach new fuel,
I stayed around awhile and stomped every last trace of smoke
out. This took awhile. And then, it was all over. No more smoke.
The ground was still hot. I was wearing shorts. I looked down
and noticed the hair on both legs was scorched. The flesh was
blackened in places from the soot. At times, my shoes had become
so hot I wondered if I could continue. But now it was over.
To cool off, I backed away, still watching where the fire had
been, just to be sure.

Here's a photo taken the next day of the long grassy strip.
You can see the burned area on the left. The fire started in
the bottom of the ditch and moved up the slope.

And here's a closer look at the burn itself. Imagine what
it was like with a ring of flames and smoke all around the
edge of the burn, and you trying to stomp it out with your
feet, and not get burned or too much smoke....

What have we learned here? This is the question that
asked itself as I walked on. If one can learn from each experience,
then the problems ahead become easier and easier to solve.
Or one can choose to face bigger challenges, or even challenges
in a new field. The sky's the limit for the person who can
learn. So I walked home, took a shower, sat down, and wrote
this up, while it was fresh in my imagination.

These seem to be the main problem solving principles I automatically
applied:

1.
Solve the problem while it's still small.

2.
Don't make the problem bigger.

3.
Plan your work, then work your plan.

4.
Get help if you need it.

5.
Keep calm, even in the heat of the battle.

6.
Have you seen this pattern before?

7.
Try a wide variety of solution alternatives.

8.
Use the right tool.

9.
If your main plan might fail, have a contengency plan
ready.

10.
Stay detached and examine your own behavior as
you work.

11.
Don't give up if there is one more promising alternative.

12.
Improvise and learn in real time, so as to evolve your solution
on the spot.

13.
Be sure the problem is completely solved.

14.
Once a problem is solved, be sure it remains solved.

15.
After a problem is solved, do a lessons learned.

So, what did I learn here? That when faced with a problem
I immediately go into a certain sort of problem solving mode,
where I'm calmly and objectively applying a complex problem
solving process. This process and its elements have been accumulated
over a lifetime. And they are still evolving, because I'm always
learning.

But I already knew that. What did I learn this time? Nothing.
Examining it now, I can't think of a single new principle I
learned. But then again, maybe I did learn something.... That
I'm still committed to a lifetime of learning.

The analysis was performed over a seven year period from 2003 to 2010. The results are summarized in the Summary of Analysis Results, the top of which is shown below:

Click on the table for the full table and a high level discussion of analysis results.

The Universal Causal Chain

This is the solution causal chain present in all problems. Popular approaches to solving the sustainability problem see only what's obvious: the black arrows. This leads to using superficial solutions to push on low leverage points to resolve intermediate causes.

Popular solutions are superficial because they fail to see into the fundamental layer, where the complete causal chain runs to root causes. It's an easy trap to fall into because it intuitively seems that popular solutions like renewable energy and strong regulations should solve the sustainability problem. But they can't, because they don't resolve the root causes.

In the analytical approach, root cause analysis penetrates the fundamental layer to find the well hidden red arrow. Further analysis finds the blue arrow.Fundamental solution elements are then developed to create the green arrow which solves the problem. For more see Causal Chain in the glossary.

This is no different from what the ancient Romans did. It’s a strategy of divide and conquer. Subproblems like these are several orders of magnitude easier to solve because you are no longer trying (in vain) to solve them simultaneously without realizing it. This strategy has changed millions of other problems from insolvable to solvable, so it should work here too.

For example, multiplying 222 times 222 in your head is for most of us impossible. But doing it on paper, decomposing the problem into nine cases of 2 times 2 and then adding up the results, changes the problem from insolvable to solvable.

Change resistance is the tendency for a system to resist change even when a surprisingly large amount of force is applied.

Overcoming change resistance is the crux of the problem, because if the system is resisting change then none of the other subproblems are solvable. Therefore this subproblem must be solved first. Until it is solved, effort to solve the other three subproblems is largely wasted effort.

The root cause of successful change resistance appears to be effective deception in the political powerplace. Too many voters and politicians are being deceived into thinking sustainability is a low priority and need not be solved now.

The high leverage point for resolving the root cause is to raise general ability to detect political deception. We need to inoculate people against deceptive false memes because once people are infected by falsehoods, it’s very hard to change their minds to see the truth.

Life form improper coupling occurs when two social life forms are not working together in harmony.

In the sustainability problem, large for-profit corporations are not cooperating smoothly with people. Instead, too many corporations are dominating political decision making to their own advantage, as shown by their strenuous opposition to solving the environmental sustainability problem.

The root cause appears to be mutually exclusive goals. The goal of the corporate life form is maximization of profits, while the goal of the human life form is optimization of quality of life, for those living and their descendents. These two goals cannot be both achieved in the same system. One side will win and the other side will lose. Guess which side is losing?

The high leverage point for resolving the root cause follows easily. If the root cause is corporations have the wrong goal, then the high leverage point is to reengineer the modern corporation to have the right goal.

The world’s solution model for solving important problems like sustainability, recurring wars, recurring recessions, excessive economic inequality, and institutional poverty has drifted so far it’s unable to solve the problem.

The root cause appears to be low quality of governmental political decisions. Various steps in the decision making process are not working properly, resulting in inability to proactively solve many difficult problems.

This indicates low decision making process maturity. The high leverage point for resolving the root cause is to raise the maturity of the political decision making process.

In the environmental proper coupling subproblem the world’s economic system is improperly coupled to the environment. Environmental impact from economic system growth has exceeded the capacity of the environment to recycle that impact.

This subproblem is what the world sees as the problem to solve. The analysis shows that to be a false assumption, however. The change resistance subproblem must be solved first.

The root cause appears to be high transaction costs for managing common property (like the air we breath). This means that presently there is no way to manage common property efficiently enough to do it sustainably.

The high leverage point for resolving the root cause is to allow new types of social agents (such as new types of corporations) to appear, in order to radically lower transaction costs.

Solutions

There must be a reason popular solutions are not working.

Given the principle that all problems arise from their root causes, the reason popular solutions are not working (after over 40 years of millions of people trying) is popular solutions do not resolve root causes.

This is Thwink.org’s most fundamental insight.

Summary of Solution Elements

Using the results of the analysis as input, 12 solutions elements were developed. Each resolves a specific root cause and thus solves one of the four subproblems, as shown below:

Click on the table for a high level discussion of the solution elements and to learn how you can hit the bullseye.

The 4 Subproblems

The solutions you are about to see differ radically from popular solutions, because each resolves a specific root cause for a single subproblem. The right subproblems were found earlier in the analysis step, which decomposed the one big Gordian Knot of a problem into The Four Subproblems of the Sustainability Problem.

Everything changes with a root cause resolution approach. You are no longer firing away at a target you can’t see. Once the analysis builds a model of the problem and finds the root causes and their high leverage points, solutions are developed to push on the leverage points.

Because each solution is aimed at resolving a specific known root cause, you can't miss. You hit the bullseye every time. It's like shooting at a target ten feet away. The bullseye is the root cause. That's why Root Cause Analysis is so fantastically powerful.

The high leverage point for overcoming change resistance is to raise general ability to detect political deception. We have to somehow make people truth literate so they can’t be fooled so easily by deceptive politicians.

This will not be easy. Overcoming change resistance is the crux of the problem and must be solved first, so it takes nine solution elements to solve this subproblem. The first is the key to it all.

B. How to Achieve Life Form Proper Coupling

In this subproblem the analysis found that two social life forms, large for-profit corporations and people, have conflicting goals. The high leverage point is correctness of goals for artificial life forms. Since the one causing the problem right now is Corporatis profitis, this means we have to reengineer the modern corporation to have the right goal.

Corporations were never designed in a comprehensive manner to serve the people. They evolved. What we have today can be called Corporation 1.0. It serves itself. What we need instead is Corporation 2.0. This life form is designed to serve people rather than itself. Its new role will be that of a trusted servant whose goal is providing the goods and services needed to optimize quality of life for people in a sustainable manner.

What’s drifted too far is the decision making model that governments use to decide what to do. It’s incapable of solving the sustainability problem.

The high leverage point is to greatly improve the maturity of the political decision making process. Like Corporation 1.0, the process was never designed. It evolved. It’s thus not quite what we want.

The solution works like this: Imagine what it would be like if politicians were rated on the quality of their decisions. They would start competing to see who could improve quality of life and the common good the most. That would lead to the most pleasant Race to the Top the world has ever seen.

Presently the world’s economic system is improperly coupled to the environment. The high leverage point is allow new types of social agents to appear to radically reduce the cost of managing the sustainability problem.

This can be done with non-profit stewardship corporations. Each steward would have the goal of sustainably managing some portion of the sustainability problem. Like the way corporations charge prices for their goods and services, stewards would charge fees for ecosystem service use. The income goes to solving the problem.

Corporations gave us the Industrial Revolution. That revolution is incomplete until stewards give us the Sustainability Revolution.

This analyzes the world’s standard political system and explains why it’s operating for the benefit of special interests instead of the common good. Several sample solutions are presented to help get you thwinking.

Note how generic most of the tools/concepts are. They apply to far more than the sustainability problem. Thus the glossary is really The Problem Solver's Guide to Difficult Social System Problems, using the sustainability problem as a running example.